Why Has Personality Psychology Played an Outsized Role in the Credibility Revolution?


  • Olivia E. Atherton Orcid
  • Joanne M. Chung Orcid
  • Kelci Harris Orcid
  • Julia M. Rohrer Orcid
  • David M. Condon Orcid
  • Felix Cheung Orcid
  • Simine Vazire Orcid
  • Richard E. Lucas Orcid
  • M. Brent Donnellan
  • Daniel K. Mroczek Orcid
  • Christopher J. Soto Orcid
  • Stephen Antonoplis Orcid
  • Rodica Ioana Damian Orcid
  • David C. Funder Orcid
  • Sanjay Srivastava Orcid
  • R. Chris Fraley
  • Hayley Jach Orcid
  • Brent W. Roberts Orcid
  • Luke D. Smillie Orcid
  • Jessie Sun Orcid
  • Jennifer L. Tackett Orcid
  • Sara J. Weston Orcid
  • K. Paige Harden Orcid
  • Katherine S. Corker Orcid


Personality is not the most popular subfield of psychology. But, in one way or another, personality psychologists have played an outsized role in the ongoing “credibility revolution” in psychology. Not only have individual personality psychologists taken on visible roles in the movement, but our field’s practices and norms have now become models for other fields to emulate (or, for those who share Baumeister’s (2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2016.02.003) skeptical view of the consequences of increasing rigor, a model for what to avoid). In this article we discuss some unique features of our field that may have placed us in an ideal position to be leaders in this movement. We do so from a subjective perspective, describing our impressions and opinions about possible explanations for personality psychology’s disproportionate role in the credibility revolution. We also discuss some ways in which personality psychology remains less-than-optimal, and how we can address these flaws.